logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2021.01.12 2019구단4854
상이등급구분판정취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 24, 1969, the Plaintiff (B) was discharged from military service on December 31, 1971 after entering the Army as a Private First Class on December 24, 1969.

B. On August 9, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on the recognition of “the above trajection” (hereinafter “the instant award”) to the effect that the Plaintiff constitutes the requirements for eligibility for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation. However, on August 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a notice of an erroneous determination (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff compared to the person eligible for veteran’s compensation (the injury is not in excess of the different grade criteria prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Etc.) on the basis of the result of deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans.

(c)

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit following the administrative adjudication of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the injury in the instant case affected the function of firefighting to the extent that normal meals could be difficult, and that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who has lost the ability to work at least 1/4 of the average of the general public due to a disability, such as chest clothes, etc.” under class 7 511 in a physical examination for reexamination.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that did not recognize a different grade against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. (1) According to Article 6(1) and (2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”) and Article 6-4(1) of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”), the head of the State Veterans Administration shall conduct a physical examination to determine the degree of wounds, and the degree of wounds shall be determined by classifying them into Grades 1 through 7 according to the degree of wounds after deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans.

Article 6-4 (3) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State.

arrow